View Full Version : Last Thread on Climate Change
Team Sergeant
11-20-2015, 08:50
No more left-wing threads on climate change. This issue is beyond stupid. Feel free to argue on facebook and twitter not here. I've read enough.
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ – ‘Leading us down a false path’
By: Marc Morano
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'
AUSTIN, Texas – A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.
The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.”
Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.”
“Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.
Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”
cont:
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s2kWpdC2
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s2kMIUOl
But, but, but, but...President Obama said climate change was settled.
"The shift to a cleaner energy economy won't happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way," said President Obama last night in his State of the Union Address."But the debate is settled," he added emphatically. "Climate change is a fact."
Source (http://io9.com/obama-the-debate-over-climate-change-is-settled-1511451300)
This Climate stuff has always been about lining the pockets of a few.
Divemaster
11-20-2015, 11:49
This article must be from the Onion. I've heard over and over that ALL scientists are in agreement about the climate issue. And that's a good thing because global warming/cooling/change is going to make me rich.
I'm going to clear cut some rain forest, in Costa Rica I think, then guilt trip libs into paying me to plant a tree in their name to not only offset their carbon footprint but also to save the rain forest.
So let's sweep these dissenting opinions under the rug, um-kay?
Bernie sanders is going to need a new strategy for dealing with ISIS if it is decided that he can n longer blame their behavior on climate change...
This Climate stuff has always been about lining the pockets of a few.
Yes sir. Exactly.
The $1.5 trillion global “climate change industry” grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm
mark46th
11-20-2015, 13:20
Like TS said, climate change is too stupid to comment on...
Yes, I'm from the Mid-West, I end sentences with prepositions...
Divemaster
11-20-2015, 13:30
Like TS said, climate change is too stupid to comment on...
Yes, I'm from the Mid-West, I end sentences with prepositions...
I never met a preposition I didn't want to end with.
This Climate stuff has always been about lining the pockets of a few.
The main thing that fires up libs about climate change is the fact that it was brought about by white hetero Christian capitalistic males of European origin. If there were no climate change to blame on this class, it would be necessary to invent it.
Red Flag 1
11-20-2015, 15:28
Mr gore will not like this one bit :D.
PedOncoDoc
11-20-2015, 15:32
A team of experts (or anyone) promoting a position that runs counter to a scientific consensus doesn't reverse that consensus, no matter how experienced and authoritative those few individuals are.
The review result of 11,944 climate abstracts published over a 20 year time span in peer reviewed scientific literature:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
"Through analysis of climate-related papers published from 1991 to 2011, this study provides the most comprehensive analysis of its kind to date in order to quantify and evaluate the level and evolution of consensus over the last two decades."
"The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW."
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
The issue is currently well settled. This should be the last climate change thread, indeed, IMO.
The reports came in raving about the success of autologous stem cell transplants for breast cancer - everyone wanted to jump on the band wagon and report their success. That is, until we ,as a medical community, let the data mature and critically looked at it....
All of this nonsense was started "Billions and Billions" of years ago by Carl Sagan. (Well, OK, 35 years ago in his Cosmos TV program.) Or, at least, that's when he began popularizing it. As far back as the '60s, he speculated that the temperatures on Venus were much higher than thought at the time. This was confirmed by the Mariner probes. He eventually blamed "Greenhouse Gasses" for the runaway overheating of Venus. The "Global Cooling" and "Nuclear Winter" crowd switched to warming after Sagan's TV show became so popular.
Here's a good essay on Sagan's contribution to what became a fraud:
The Original Sin of Global Warming (http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/26/the-original-sin-of-global-warming/)
Pat
All of this nonsense was started "Billions and Billions" of years ago by Carl Sagan. (Well, OK, 35 years ago in his Cosmos TV program.) Or, at least, that's when he began popularizing it. As far back as the '60s, he speculated that the temperatures on Venus were much higher than thought at the time. This was confirmed by the Mariner probes. He eventually blamed "Greenhouse Gasses" for the runaway overheating of Venus. The "Global Cooling" and "Nuclear Winter" crowd switched to warming after Sagan's TV show became so popular.
Here's a good essay on Sagan's contribution to what became a fraud:
The Original Sin of Global Warming (http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/26/the-original-sin-of-global-warming/)
Pat
It's gone back and forth between "warming" and "cooling" since I was a kid and typewriters were just getting popular.
It's lib baloney.
PS bandwith should not be wasted on the subject.
If you have to go back 70 - 80 years and lower recorded temps to make this years data look higher - plus disregard the satellite data - you're cooking the books.
Oh, by the way, isn't this the year the Arctic was supposed to be free of ice?
The asshats keep making these dire predictions and when they don't come true - they just come up with new ones.
The cave entrances to the famous French prehistoric cave paintings are a couple of hundred feet below sea level. And folks are worried about a couple of inches?
Tree Potato
11-20-2015, 20:14
This is not a good rationale for rejecting an overwhelming (to say the least) scientific consensus based upon a review of thousands of peer-reviewed studies performed over two decades.
Do you really believe that the development of scientific agreement on such a scale is a matter of bandwagon jumping? :confused:
There is ample self selection going on to skew the statistics drastically; I say this as a published atmospheric scientist who has seen it first hand. Many, many, of my peers don't buy the "consensus" but don't bother attempting to counter it because it's wasted effort and they have families to feed. Studies that don't support the desired result of validating anthropogenic global warming, climate change, or whatever label you choose, are simply not approved for funding and die off before any research is done. Follow the money.
Further, students who entered atmospheric science programs in recent years tend to be drawn to the field due to an interest in validating global warming...the proverbial self licking ice cream cone.
At this point AGW theory is better described as a religion than as a science. Scientists should welcome skepticism because it refines what we know; the AGW crowd fears and despises any critical thinking. Anyone who dares question the "consensus" is deemed a heretic and is then ostracized from the major grant sources. Those who "believe" in AGW are groomed and allowed to compete with other believers for the more prestigious pots of grant money.
A century from now scientists will look back on this period of time and use it as a case study of how political activism can contaminate basic scientific methods.
This article has a distinct absence of any reference to evidence that far exceeds, in quality and quantity, that which has formed a powerful consensus on this subject.
At this point, for anyone to convince the world that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening, false equivalence fallacies and whining about conspiracies don't cut it.
I believe that all of the above were refuted by Team Sergeant's post #1.
What I posted was a link to another's observation of what I've observed developing over the last 3 to 4 decades. Have you lived the 6 decades that I have and observed the manipulation of information and education that I have?
From Eisenhower's final address to the nation, he is often quoted, by lefties, about the "Military Industrial Complex" paragraph. The following paragraph was about the "Education Governmental Complex" which is NEVER quoted. I wonder why?
Pat
Which was refuted by the very first line of my first post.
This is a version of an ad hominem fallacy known as the Shill Gambit. Its the same used by those attempting to discredit scientists who find GMOs safe, for instance, by claiming the scientist is manipulated by a corporation or government agency.
Well, hell. Now you've pissed me off, so I'm not going to tell you about when I worked for an airline that flew around spraying chemtrails across the continent. Your loss. ;)
Pat
Tree Potato
11-21-2015, 00:12
Yes, challenging any scientific consensus is a gigantic pain in the ass that involves tremendous amounts of criticism heaped upon those who deny scientific facts, and it should be.
Research is still being produced which provides contradiction to the consensus on the issue. What ground do you imagine the team of scientists enlisted by the TPPF are standing on? One day the conclusions that research is making on the subject might constitute the majority opinion; as it stands now, though, it doesn't even come close.
1. Most of the "facts" presented by the AGW cult are actually model and simulation output, not facts; there is a difference. The actual facts are observed raw data, prior to adjustments made for things people assume alter or skew the datasets.
2. Truth isn't necessarily found in majority opinion or consensus, and scientists shoudn't be criticized and have to endure tremendous amounts of ass pain simply because they question the majority opinion. Scientific progress is based on questioning assumptions and challenging models that don't work with 100% accuracy. Within the atmospheric science community there is an open hostility toward anyone questioning "the consensus", and this affects funding. The scientists enlisted by the TPPF are probably being funded by the TPPF rather than the typical public university grant structure that is far easier to get research funds through (as long as your an AGW advocate).
3. The AGW debate morphed into the realm of emotions, credibility, and politics. That is not good science, it is mob theatrics.
bailaviborita
11-21-2015, 00:14
The links between the anti-White supremacist-Capitalistic-Heteronormative groups protesting on campuses today and the Climate Change social hysteria types should give one pause.
The President referenced the DoD in his state of the union on climate change. Love that- since he ordered us to identify it as a national security threat!!! (just like sexual harassment...)
The models these guys are running are... models. And models are all wrong. Some are more wrong than others. These are really, really wrong...
A relative of mine is in the "environmental policy" circles. It is a faith-based effort...
Which was refuted by the very first line of my first post.
This is a version of an ad hominem fallacy known as the Shill Gambit. Its the same used by those attempting to discredit scientists who find GMOs safe, for instance, by claiming the scientist is manipulated by a corporation or government agency.
So, tree potato is an Atmospheric scientist and, if you're profile is accurate, you are an.....11A. Who's opinion should hold more weight?
Hmmmm.....
bailaviborita
11-21-2015, 07:44
So, tree potato is an Atmospheric scientist and, if you're profile is accurate, you are an.....11A. Who's opinion should hold more weight?
Hmmmm.....
If he goes SF he'll make a great general officer: never question conventional wisdom, attack those who do, and assume you know everything outside of your expertise. Sounds just like every one of them I've met...
Guymullins
11-21-2015, 08:05
I am afraid that this won't be the last thread on Climate Change. I have a strong story to tell about the financial aspects of the UNFCCC and how it is a financial scam, regardless of whether the planet is warming or not. I worked in the field for a number of years as a Director of the London based company that at one time was dealing over a third of the worlds volume of CER futures and options. We were doing quite well until the latest banking crisis hammered the industries we dealt with forcing down the price of CERs to uneconomic levels. Carbon trading died a tidy death and has still not recovered. The UNFCCC edifice is built on a totally artificial set of rules and regulations which are designed to benefit first world nations only. Third World nations, who are supposed to be the ones who are most likely to suffer from global warming, were financially raped by the first world and are now left with the option of imposing Carbon Taxes on their own industries so that the rape can continue unabated, but this time, greedy Third World governments can begin to feed on the Global Warming monster.
Because the UNFCCC scheme is very complex, the entire scam is quite difficult to explain to people who are not intimately involved in the scheme. That is why it has taken some time for me to write a clear and easily digested explanation of the scam. That piece will perhaps be the final and last thread on Climate Change we will see on this site. Be patient.
Team Sergeant
11-21-2015, 09:30
I am afraid that this won't be the last thread on Climate Change. I have a strong story to tell about the financial aspects of the UNFCCC and how it is a financial scam, regardless of whether the planet is warming or not. I worked in the field for a number of years as a Director of the London based company that at one time was dealing over a third of the worlds volume of CER futures and options. We were doing quite well until the latest banking crisis hammered the industries we dealt with forcing down the price of CERs to uneconomic levels. Carbon trading died a tidy death and has still not recovered. The UNFCCC edifice is built on a totally artificial set of rules and regulations which are designed to benefit first world nations only. Third World nations, who are supposed to be the ones who are most likely to suffer from global warming, were financially raped by the first world and are now left with the option of imposing Carbon Taxes on their own industries so that the rape can continue unabated, but this time, greedy Third World governments can begin to feed on the Global Warming monster.
Because the UNFCCC scheme is very complex, the entire scam is quite difficult to explain to people who are not intimately involved in the scheme. That is why it has taken some time for me to write a clear and easily digested explanation of the scam. That piece will perhaps be the final and last thread on Climate Change we will see on this site. Be patient.
We can always talk about corruption. And that is what climate change is all about.
I imagine that this is related: CA has banned WD 40 by the end of 2016. Coming to a state near you.
How do you like those CARB fuel can nozzles?
Pat
I imagine that this is related: CA has banned WD 40 by the end of 2016. Coming to a state near you.
How do you like those CARB fuel can nozzles?
Pat
WD40? Fish oil?
lol
(urban legend)
Sometimes, you wade through the oppositions playbook for insight into thier agenda. In the book review below - discussing climate change - appearing on the World Socialist Web Site - the review itself and many of the comments essentially complain that this progressive author argues for reformed capitalism instead of socialism vis-a-via the climate change discussion. Complete review at link below.
"The book’s title implicitly argues that capitalism is fundamentally in conflict with the earth’s climate. However, Klein goes out of her way to make clear that her goal is simply to reform capitalism, not to overthrow it."
Awww, merely reforming capitalism and not overthrowing it in the name of climate change - is just not good enough for these folks.
Don't be duped. The left have co-opted the climate change issue in their fight to fundamentally transform our nation.
World Socialist Web Site
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/05/04/klei-m04.html
Pro-capitalist “anti-capitalism”
A review of This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, by Naomi Klein
By Evan Winters
4 May 2015
Naomi Klein’s new book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, has been met with widespread acclaim among individuals and organizations associated with the environmental movement. The book’s release coincided with the September 21, 2014 “People’s Climate March” in New York City. The release was announced at a telecast event at which speakers from environmental and indigenous activist groups, such as 350.org and Idle No More, joined trade union officials to hail the book as a manifesto for climate-related protest politics. A companion film of the same name is scheduled for release in the fall of 2015.
In the book’s introduction, Klein notes that, according to the World Bank, “we’re on track for a 4°C warmer world.” This estimate is primarily based on current and projected levels of greenhouse gas emissions, which trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere.
She explains that, according to the best available science, “Four degrees of warming could raise global sea levels by 1 or possibly even 2 meters (3.3-6.6 feet) by 2100… Major cities in jeopardy include Boston, New York, greater Los Angeles, Vancouver, London, Mumbai, Hong Kong and Shanghai.” [P. 13]
She adds, “The heat would also cause staple crops to suffer dramatic yield losses across the globe… When you add ruinous hurricanes, raging wildfires, fisheries collapses, widespread disruptions of water supplies, extinctions and globe-trotting diseases to the mix, it indeed becomes difficult to imagine that a peaceful ordered society could be maintained.” [P. 14]
“[W]e have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism.” [P. 18]
To effectively and equitably deal with the climate crisis, Klein calls for increased levels of renewable electricity, supported by “vast new electricity grids.” [P. 90]
In addition, society ought “to invest in starving public infrastructure like mass transit and affordable housing; to take back ownership of essential services like energy and water; to remake our sick agricultural system into something healthier; to open borders to migrants whose displacement is linked to climate impacts.” [P. 7]
At present, however, the governments of wealthier nations instead “will build ever more high-tech fortresses and adopt even more draconian anti-immigration laws. And, in the name of ‘national security,’ we will intervene in foreign conflicts over water, oil and arable land, or start those conflicts ourselves. In short, our culture will do what it is already doing, only with more brutality and barbarism, because that is what our system is meant to do.” [P. 49]
The book’s title implicitly argues that capitalism is fundamentally in conflict with the earth’s climate. However, Klein goes out of her way to make clear that her goal is simply to reform capitalism, not to overthrow it.
When the word “capitalism” appears in her book, it is invariably preceded by “neo-liberal,” or “deregulated” or “predatory.” On the page before the table of contents, Klein quotes science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson, who argues that the task ahead is “comprehensively changing capitalism.”
What, then, does Klein mean by “capitalism,” and how would she like to see it changed? In an MSNBC interview, she asserts that, “capitalism as usual is an economic system based on short-term profits and growth.”
Klein argues the goal must be to create a version of capitalism in which “Low-carbon sectors of our economy can be encouraged to expand… while high-carbon sectors are encouraged to contract.” [P. 21]
Such a program would be achieved on the basis of national protectionism, ending free trade agreements, and encouraging “buy local” schemes. It will also apparently require a reduction of living standards for the working class in advanced industrial countries, perhaps through a shorter work week with correspondingly lower wages. [P. 94]
In the same interview, Klein is asked what she would like to replace capitalism with. Her response is: “A system that can say no to corporations, that you can’t dig up five times more carbon than our atmosphere can safely absorb... Maybe even that you [fossil fuel companies] should help pay for us to transition away from fossil fuels.”
In other words, Klein is calling for a return to some sort of regulated capitalist economy. Along these lines, she makes numerous references to the New Deal and the Marshall Plan, programs that introduced various social reforms and government investment in infrastructure.
This is essentially the same argument she made in her popular 2007 book The Shock Doctrine. This journalistic exposé documents the way moneyed interests take advantage of crises to push through predatory agendas that would otherwise be politically impossible. The book, which was translated into 25 languages, made the New York Times bestseller list and topped similar lists in several other countries.
To achieve these ends, Klein calls for a diverse group of loosely affiliated organizations to undertake various forms of political “resistance.” Quoting Brad Werner, a complex systems researcher at University of California, San Diego, Klein writes: ‘“[T]his includes ‘environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by Indigenous groups, workers, anarchists, and other activist groups.’” [P. 450]
She calls on the courts to prevent fossil fuel extraction and transport by enforcing indigenous treaty rights. She writes: “If court challenges like Beaver Lake’s can succeed in halting tar sands expansion, they could very well be the best chance for the rest of us to continue enjoying a climate that is hospitable to human life.” [P. 379]
She supports civil disobedience campaigns surrounding the Keystone XL oil pipeline and other fossil fuel infrastructure projects, which aim to pressure the Obama administration and other politicians. She promotes fossil fuel divestment campaigns at universities, banks and other investing institutions.
Building off her conception of The Shock Doctrine, Klein calls for a “people’s shock” in response to the threats posed by climate change: “Given these factors… another crisis will see us in the streets and squares once again... The real question is what progressive forces will make of that moment, the power and confidence with which it will be seized.” [P. 466]
In other words, she calls for “progressive” political figures to utilize major social crises to gain access to the halls of state power to carry out a shift in environmental and social policies. What would it look like if the forces Klein promotes were to come to power? Fortunately, we can answer this question by looking to Greece.
Klein extensively quotes her interviews with Alexis Tsipras, leader of the Syriza party in Greece, which she calls “one of the few sources of hope in Europe.” [P. 466]
In the months since her book’s publication, Syriza has taken power in Greece, quickly abandoning all its campaign promises. It is now implementing a program of brutal austerity. Yanis Varoufakis, Syriza’s lead bargainer in negotiations with Greece’s creditors, openly states, much like Klein, that his goal is to save capitalism from itself.
Klein is a skilled journalist. Her exposures of the hypocrisy of major environmental NGOs and green-sounding billionaires should dispel any illusions that such forces can address climate change. Her consultations with leading scientists shine through in many places, especially her discussion of the effects of environmental disturbances on developing life.
She clearly and convincingly communicates that the current economic system is on track to unfathomable environmental devastation, and requires a massive overhaul.
Her political conceptions are often amorphous, and one gets the distinct sense that many have not been carefully thought through. However, she expresses clearly the interests of a privileged layer of the upper-middle class.
These layers, embodied in the social elements present at Klein’s book release, long ago gave up on the working class as an agent of revolutionary change. They are terrified by the apparently imminent collapse of capitalist society and its revolutionary implications. Their aim is to stabilize capitalism and block the development of an independent movement of the working class, the only social force capable of rationally responding to climate change.
...the climate change discussion for the left...is the precious...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz-8CSa9xj8
ETA: I agree with this IMO insightful observation made earlier by Tree Potato:
"A century from now scientists will look back on this period of time and use it as a case study of how political activism can contaminate basic scientific methods."
WD40? Fish oil?
lol
(urban legend)
Smells better! I use it as a deodorant and antiperspirant. :D
Pat
Divemaster
11-21-2015, 19:47
I imagine that this is related: CA has banned WD 40 by the end of 2016. Coming to a state near you.
How do you like those CARB fuel can nozzles?
Pat
I always thought WD 33 thru 39 were better products, and better for the environment. They should bring back WD 39.
CO2 = plant food.
So that means ... we're ALL breathing in plant flatulence !!!! :eek:
mark46th
11-21-2015, 20:27
Whenever the topic of global warming comes up, you should remind people that the data from East Anglia University that started all this nonsense was false. The scientists involved admitted that the results from original data used did not fit their expected result. So, they did what every true scientist would do, they changed the data entered into the model until it produced their desired result.
I always thought WD 33 thru 39 were better products, and better for the environment. They should bring back WD 39.
33 1/3 was the best! :lifter
Pat
Tree Potato
11-21-2015, 20:49
Whenever the topic of global warming comes up, you should remind people that the data from East Anglia University that started all this nonsense was false. The scientists involved admitted that the results from original data used did not fit their expected result. So, they did what every true scientist would do, they changed the data entered into the model until it produced their desired result.
This was even put to music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dul_hYde0nk
So, Bernie Madoff goes to prison for screwing a bunch of rich guys who wanted to get a special investment deal that us not-so-rich guys couldn't get, but the people who steal government money and blackmail corporations get...
FREE MADOFF! JAIL GORE!
p.s.: I'm serious. :mad:
Pat
I place hijacked environmentalism in the same category as hijacked feminism.
Have we made great strides in both environmental policy and feminist equally since the 1960's?
Absolutely.
And in both cases they were absolutely necessary.
Pollution remediation and gender inequality were both in serious need of adjustment.
And they have been.
US water and air quality are significantly better than decades ago, and although not perfect is heading in the right direction.
Institutional gender inequality has largely been destroyed, and although not perfect is heading in the right direction.
The problem I have with both is how hijacked feminism resulted in my Mom/Sister/female friends now having 2 full time jobs(as opposed to just 1 as their historical counterparts had) and no one is allowed to question that part.
What I see is houses have gotten bigger, families have 2 cars, and they've got more junk.
But women have been completely shafted having to work heaps harder/longer in exchange for a little bit more trinket-y bullsh!t.
It's like the exchange of Manhattan for a few shiny beads.
Except complaining about hijacked feminism means you hate women, discussion over.
I expect no different from hijacked environmentalism.
Back in the day with hijacked feminism I reckon it was aligned interests between government(to hide poor fiscal/monetary policy) and commerce(new revenue streams from females who now must be employed for family financial survival).
The result, make Mom love her new 3 job lifestyle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q0P94wyBYk
At least back then they tried to Jedi Mind Trick you into believing the nonsense.
The current hijacking iteration for Climate Change doesn't even try:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATTknP8t7JU
It's like the Khmer Rouge with an English accent.
Antonio Gramsci was instrumental in developing the blueprint for 'hijacking' causes to subvert Christianity and advance Marxism.
http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=543600&postcount=10
I place hijacked environmentalism in the same category as hijacked feminism.
Have we made great strides in both environmental policy and feminist equally since the 1960's?
Absolutely.
And in both cases they were absolutely necessary.
Pollution remediation and gender inequality were both in serious need of adjustment.
And they have been.
US water and air quality are significantly better than decades ago, and although not perfect is heading in the right direction.
Institutional gender inequality has largely been destroyed, and although not perfect is heading in the right direction.
The problem I have with both is how hijacked feminism resulted in my Mom/Sister/female friends now having 2 full time jobs(as opposed to just 1 as their historical counterparts had) and no one is allowed to question that part.
What I see is houses have gotten bigger, families have 2 cars, and they've got more junk.
But women have been completely shafted having to work heaps harder/longer in exchange for a little bit more trinket-y bullsh!t.
It's like the exchange of Manhattan for a few shiny beads.
Except complaining about hijacked feminism means you hate women, discussion over.
I expect no different from hijacked environmentalism.
Back in the day with hijacked feminism I reckon it was aligned interests between government(to hide poor fiscal/monetary policy) and commerce(new revenue streams from females who now must be employed for family financial survival).
The result, make Mom love her new 3 job lifestyle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q0P94wyBYk
At least back then they tried to Jedi Mind Trick you into believing the nonsense.
The current hijacking iteration for Climate Change doesn't even try:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATTknP8t7JU
It's like the Khmer Rouge with an English accent.
Good stuff.
I've often wondered:
Why is it that the great majority of aggressive feminists are appearance-challenged?
Why is it that the great majority of aggressive environmentalists are libs?
Antonio Gramsci was instrumental in developing the blueprint for 'hijacking' causes to subvert Christianity and advance Marxism.
http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=543600&postcount=10
oooOOOOOooo!
So I'm not crazy!
Cheers for the affirmation :) Haha.
Good stuff.
I've often wondered:
Why is it that the great majority of aggressive feminists are appearance-challenged?
Why is it that the great majority of aggressive environmentalists are libs?
When I think of hijacked feminism, I don't think about old school, traditional role based stuff.
I think about having been surrounded by awesome, strong, capable women who have gotten shafted the MOST by feminism.
I think about that scene in 1984 in the elevator and they're small talking about how "the chocolate ration has increased from 30 to 25 grams a month, Doublegood!".
It's like being served a sh!t sandwich that you have to eat.
We've all eaten sh!t sandwiches before, I prefer mine to be voluntary and without the mandatory requirement to have to say "Thank you!"
Old Dog New Trick
09-03-2021, 19:31
Kickstart this old can again because we’re all about to eat a sh!t sammich. In the aftermath of Hurricane Ida the same old arguments are being used to spend our great-grandchildren’s future and the current party in charge just can’t wait to line their pockets with our money.
This isn’t the worst it’s ever been, the continents were created by even bigger forces before recorded history, and someday in the future that will likely happen again, but one thing is actually true…”man made disasters” have been created by man. Nature just provides the conditions to show us where man has overreached and created the conditions for catastrophic results and measurable points of failure.
The island houses in Louisiana on Grand Isle got destroyed because they were there. The low lying inexpensive residential areas that have flooded from Houston to North Carolina and the Northwest in recent years and, over and over again in the Gulf Coast is because they keep building low income housing on land that no one should rightfully be allowed to purchase or insure. The Condominium in Florida didn’t necessarily fall down because of climate change, it fell down because it was built poorly and humans (man) failed to recognize the danger, greed and shortcuts killed all those people; not rain and salt spray; those things actually are part of living next to an ocean.
Now before this gets too long winded, breezy and wet, what happened in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania this week should have been foretold by Hurricane Sandy. The number one problem with the Northeast (anywhere for that matter) is that the rivers and tributaries feeding them haven’t gotten any bigger in the last one hundred years, but the land that was once forest, and plains of grass and dirt (watersheds) have all been turned into ribbons of pavement and parking lots, cement structures and sidewalks and other non-porous materials shedding water wherever it can. Engineers (otherwise smart and educated people) have designed every millimeter and square inch of living space and roadway to drain into something never created for the purpose and insufficient to carry it away. Water will always find the path of least resistance and accumulate in low lying areas…that’s just what it does. Don’t the engineers know where that is?
This isn’t a result of an extra inch or two per hour of rainfall (in recorded history) or a one or two increase in temperature over the last one hundred years, but a direct result of 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 more people occupying the same space only spread out a little more than before. Climate always changes up or down, left and right, but man is responsible for the entire situation that causes man (humans) to suffer consequences for their actions.
You know who F’d up this time? It wasn’t God or Mother Nature…it was the person who watches the weather and tells the government what to expect…and the government to tell the people what they should do because we all now know the people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. Like living in a basement apartment subject to flooding or riding a subway train through a waterfall, or driving your car down into a flooded underpass seeing the taillights of the cars in front of you disappear. Most people who die in their cars in a flood die on a road they are familiar with and only miles from their destination. Why is that?
Every (nearly every) life lost to Hurricane Ida could have been prevented and many were because they heeded the instructions to leave its path or stay home, but others were never warned of the hazard it posed or simply ignored the dangers they could see with their own eyes. Gee it’s really raining hard tonight maybe we should pull off on some high ground out of the way or stop somewhere until it’s better…hmm?
True ODNT, but a good portion of the sheeple are ignorant of the facts. In my AO the weather people preach how much worse winters are and tell the viewers we've never had over 6" of snow, it's never been as cold, and the snow has never been on the ground for more than a few days.
Yet I have a 1950's picture of my Grandfather shoveling in almost knee high snow in his drive. I can recall walking to the bus stop in snow in excess of 6", below zero temp and near blizzard conditions......
Back in 2017 CBS had this to say about Houston....
There are a lot of factors at play. For one: Houston's elevation. The city is relatively flat and is barely above sea level. Downtown is only about 50 feet above sea level, and there's only about a four-foot change between the highest and lowest parts of downtown. That means when rain falls, it has nowhere to go, and takes a long time to drain out.
Some of the southern suburbs are even lower...at 40 feet above sea level. The highest point in the city, in the northwest suburbs is only 128 feet above sea level.
Once the bayous flood, the freeway system functions as a de-facto secondary flood control system, even though it isn't supposed to. New freeways are built to handle 100-year floods, but we've already exceeded the conditions that define a 100-year flood at in many spots with the flooding from Harvey.
Once the water overtops the freeways, you get to the residential streets which are recessed in a bit as a final small flood control measure. As soon as the water gets above that and onto the sidewalks, homes start flooding.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harvey-why-is-houston-so-prone-to-major-flooding/
Badger52
09-04-2021, 05:41
Now before this gets too long winded, breezy and wet...Entire post is a post-frontal breath of fresh air. Literally, thank you.
We have similar denizens up here. They build palatial cabin-like things right onto the channel-edge of a small-but-powerful little river just away from a fixed-capacity spillway and then Mother Nature periodically does her reveal. She does this quietly in comparison to the Northeast US because that is where all the suits & cameras are. Nonetheless, she will spill that Chicagoan's 2nd home into the lake with just as much equality-of-outcome as any. It gets some local pictures in the paper and there will be hearings & flailing of arms & gnashing of teeth. But the dummkopf will rebuild in the same spot, caring little about what holds the soil and why one might want to do that & leave it be.
Meanwhile the largemouth & crappies really like the new structure; it's better than planted fish cribs.
Never let facts interfere with a well-developed narrative.
Old Dog New Trick
09-04-2021, 11:57
To my point…people are really stupid!
https://apple.news/AYYV5FBaySDSop_IE319LMQ
'Heroic' bus driver says she was so focused on getting passengers out of floodwater, she didn't notice they were standing on seats
"I couldn't go back. I couldn't stay there," Amonte said. "The only decision I could take in the moment was (to) go over it, past Queens Boulevard."
Governor praises Amonte
The video got plenty of public attention, and by Thursday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul stopped at a Queens bus depot to thank Amonte.
"Rosa did something that is absolutely, unbelievably heroic," Hochul told reporters gathered there.
"She drove passengers through 3 to 4 feet of water. I watched that video. The water ... was in the bus. People are literally standing on their seats to make sure that they did not drown inside a bus," Hochul said.
"But she didn't pull over and say, 'I'm out of here, I'm going home.' She stood there. She drove; she went through the night and did what it took to get people there safely."
Maybe I should go back a few years and find the Elementry School Bus driver (I think it was Texas) who drove her bus across a shallow flooded road and it floated away and down further and further into the trees until it was completely submerged and everyone died! ETA: I stand corrected. In recent Texas incident bus driver and one student didn’t die. But stumbled across this other related story also from Texas and one from the Dead Sea in Jordan.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article220707600.html
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Comfort-flood-claimed-10-lives-thirty-years-ago-11293761.php
https://www.newsweek.com/dead-sea-flooding-children-killed-after-school-bus-swept-away-jordan-search-1188289
One’s a hero the other a zero. Only difference…outcome.
tom kelly
09-04-2021, 17:01
There are way too many people on this planet, and the population by 2050 is projected to be 12 billion people... All most all human beings have a body temperature of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, + the vast majority of these people will burn wood to cook meals and stay warm in cold climates. The solution is to limit /control population growth....
GratefulCitizen
09-04-2021, 17:13
Climate change nonsense just a modern attempt at sumptuary laws.
If you’re rich, you can burn as much jet A as you want, but the peasants need to drive tin cans and can’t be trusted with those gas-guzzling SUVs.
What fun is it to be rich and powerful if the middle class has it so good that they don’t care?
Put those peasants in their place!
US AID , Spending your $150 billion, on this along with the equality agenda caused by climate change.
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USAID-Climate-Strategy-2022-2030.pdf
More self licking ice cream cones at the EPA.
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/fy-2022-2026-epa-strategic-plan-overview.pdf